Just a general comment: usually, if review of the original series is
still going on, it makes a lot more sense to raise such things in the
original series so the author can fixup while things are still in
mm-unstable. Once the series is in mm-stable, it's a different story. In
that case, it is usually good to have the mail subjects be something
like "[PATCH mm-stable 1/1] ...".
Ok... For my education, do you mean the title of this patch should
somehow reflect that it should be folded into the original patch? Just
trying to understand the actionable item here. How would you change
this patch when posting for mm-unstable and for mm-stable?
For patches that fixup something in mm-stable (stable commit ID but not
yet master -> we cannot squash anymore so we need separate commits),
it's good to include "mm-stable". The main difference to patches that
target master is that by indicating "mm-stable", everyone knows that
this is not broken in some upstream/production kernel.
For patches that fixup something that is in mm-unstable (no stable
commit ID -> still under review and fixup easily possible), IMHO we
distinguish between two cases:
(1) You fixup your own patches: simply send the fixup as reply to the
original patch. Andrew will pick it up and squash it before including it
in mm-stable. Sometimes a complete resend of a series makes sense instead.
(2) You fixup patches from someone else: simply raise it as a review
comment in reply to the original patch. It might make sense to send a
patch, but usually you just raise the issue to the patch author as a
review comment and the author will address that. Again, Andrew will pick
it up and squash it before moving it to mm-stable.
That way, it's clearer when stumbling over patches on the mailing list
if they fix a real issue in upstream, fix a issue in
soon-to-be-upstream, or are simply part of a WIP series that is still
under review.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
